RobSeace:I think you're using terms in a very confusing and nonsensical manner...

The point on where I am trying do differentiate is the biological creation vs. where the legal protections that cover human life are enacted. These are not necessarily the same thing. Right now there is a substantial gap between the two.

RobSeace:HeadLever: The beginning of a unique human life is basically fertilization and the biological construction of an embryo (the two halves have come together) and is not necessarily the beginning of human life.

I...uh...huh??

I think you're using terms in a very confusing and nonsensical manner... If you contend something is the "beginning of a unique human life", then it also must logically be the "beginning of a human life"...

Not at all. The beginning of human life happened a LONG time ago. We are all just spawns of that human life, we aren't the beginning of human life, we are the continuation of it.

SurfaceTension:You know, I'm pro-choice and I could actually get behind a rational movement that tries to convince women to choose different alternatives than abortion. But anti-abortion folks aren't actually concerned about stopping abortions so much as they are about punishing women for having sex. It's sad, really.

Do all pro-death people just assert personal opinion as fact, or just you?

HeadLever:The point on where I am trying do differentiate is the biological creation vs. where the legal protections that cover human life are enacted. These are not necessarily the same thing. Right now there is a substantial gap between the two.

Yes, but the terms you've chosen to use for each aren't exactly the clearest... For the "legal protections that cover human life" one, what's wrong with the traditional "personhood"? I think most rational people will agree that fetuses are early stage homo sapiens lifeforms; where they disagree is when that lifeform becomes a "person" with rights...

Nutsac_Jim:SurfaceTension: You know, I'm pro-choice and I could actually get behind a rational movement that tries to convince women to choose different alternatives than abortion. But anti-abortion folks aren't actually concerned about stopping abortions so much as they are about punishing women for having sex. It's sad, really.

Do all pro-death people just assert personal opinion as fact, or just you?

I don't know any pro-death people, but it is a widely held, and well-supported opinion amongst the pro-choice crowd.

lilplatinum:Those folks need to read a farking dictionary. Until abortion is outlawed, it cannot definitionally be murder.

"killing another person" without due process and/or legal justifiction is most often the legal prerequisite for murder. Those that disagree with him would likely argue that being a fetus is not legal justification.

I kinda went into that, but if someone conceives, it's a done deal. I get that there is no way for the little "bug" to feel anything early on or the thing hasn't become conscious, blah blah blah. The choice is the mother's to decide when or if she wants to take a "bug" to term. If she doesn't want to, shiat or scrape or suck, whatever, the damn thing out. We can't judge a woman because she's just not willing to go through with it for any reason (who is the father, I have to write my thesis, he's an ugly fat guy that didn't bring a condom, etc). It is what it is. I understand that because she never held that particular person in her arms that there is no connection. And that's fine too. It's her body and her choice.

One of these FARKers is going to show up as soon as he gets off the french fry station and repeat his opinion that the fetus becomes a person only when the mother decides to go full term. He gets off on these threads. I just stated my opinion, you have yours, and I am not going to judge you for that.

HeadLever:lilplatinum: Those folks need to read a farking dictionary. Until abortion is outlawed, it cannot definitionally be murder.

"killing another person" without due process and/or legal justifiction is most often the legal prerequisite for murder. Those that disagree with him would likely argue that being a fetus is not legal justification.

Actually, the most important pre-requisite for murder, is that the killing be unlawful.

HeadLever:"killing another person" without due process and/or legal justifiction is most often the legal prerequisite for murder. Those that disagree with him would likely argue that being a fetus is not legal justification.

Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", key is the portion about "unlawful". Definitionally, even if you do think a fetus is a human being, it cannot be murder unless it is against the law. Legal definitions are even more strict and obviously not applicable to abortion.

give me doughnuts:Actually, the most important pre-requisite for murder, is that the killing be unlawful.

On the surface, yes. However, the killing of people and its relation to murder is much more than a simple law. You can find it shrined in the founding of this country and mentioned as an unalienable right section of the DoI.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you accept the context that a fetus is a person (per the comment I was responding to) and this is the same as the 'men' indicated above, then you have the premis of abortion being against this unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence in additon to the Bill of Rights.

gja:Carth: gja: Relatively Obscure: realmolo: The biatch DID deserve it. That doesn't mean she should get punched. We live in a civilized society. Violence is against the rules.

But come ON. Anti-abortion protesters are pieces-of-shiat. Wouldn't you punch one if there weren't any consequences? I know I would.

There aren't too many things that are going to make me want to punch a stupid old lady. A strong disagreement probably isn't on that list. If it wasn't just not in my nature to want to do that kind of thing, then the fact that once I started I'd be busy punching people for the rest of my life would deter me.

There is only 1 thing any woman could do to provoke me to strike her.Waving a weapon at me is it. If a woman were to point a gun, or come towards me with a knife, with the clear intent to do deadly harm she will be waking up on the ground disarmed and likely hogtied. That is MY tipping point.

So you don't think it is acceptable to resort to violence to eliminate a greater evil?

Never said that. I merely established the tipping point for myself. Try to follow along.

Unless you mean "Yes it is acceptable for other people to resort to hitting a women to stop a greater evil, but i would never do it" yes you did (which is possible). Your sentence limited to you only one instance when you would strike a women. Did you mean something else? Or did the definition of "only" change like literally did?

HeadLever:give me doughnuts: Actually, the most important pre-requisite for murder, is that the killing be unlawful.

On the surface, yes. However, the killing of people and its relation to murder is much more than a simple law. You can find it shrined in the founding of this country and mentioned as an unalienable right section of the DoI.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you accept the context that a fetus is a person (per the comment I was responding to) and this is the same as the 'men' indicated above, then you have the premis of abortion being against this unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence in additon to the Bill of Rights.

You're absolutely correct. The problem you have is proving that a fetus is 'alive' or 'a person' or 'conscious'. That's not an exact science, but it's been fairly proven that around 14 weeks is when fetuses start to show definitive features of a living person.

Once again, you can believe whatever you want according to the Bible, but laws in this country are not based on the Bible. And please don't start the whole 'DoI and Bill of Rights had it right' dumbass argument, because then your argument starts agreeing with women being property and black people being 3/5 of a person.

The bible is a good starting point, much like the DoI was a good starting point. It is not the end result, it is 'in process'... perpetually.

HeadLever:give me doughnuts: Actually, the most important pre-requisite for murder, is that the killing be unlawful.

On the surface, yes. However, the killing of people and its relation to murder is much more than a simple law. You can find it shrined in the founding of this country and mentioned as an unalienable right section of the DoI.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you accept the context that a fetus is a person (per the comment I was responding to) and this is the same as the 'men' indicated above, then you have the premis of abortion being against this unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence in additon to the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing in any court.As for the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment), the "due process of law" includes legislation to create those laws as well as the trials that create legal precedents like Row v. Wade.

Carth:gja: Carth: gja: Relatively Obscure: realmolo: The biatch DID deserve it. That doesn't mean she should get punched. We live in a civilized society. Violence is against the rules.

But come ON. Anti-abortion protesters are pieces-of-shiat. Wouldn't you punch one if there weren't any consequences? I know I would.

There aren't too many things that are going to make me want to punch a stupid old lady. A strong disagreement probably isn't on that list. If it wasn't just not in my nature to want to do that kind of thing, then the fact that once I started I'd be busy punching people for the rest of my life would deter me.

There is only 1 thing any woman could do to provoke me to strike her.Waving a weapon at me is it. If a woman were to point a gun, or come towards me with a knife, with the clear intent to do deadly harm she will be waking up on the ground disarmed and likely hogtied. That is MY tipping point.

So you don't think it is acceptable to resort to violence to eliminate a greater evil?

Never said that. I merely established the tipping point for myself. Try to follow along.

Unless you mean "Yes it is acceptable for other people to resort to hitting a women to stop a greater evil, but i would never do it" yes you did (which is possible). Your sentence limited to you only one instance when you would strike a women. Did you mean something else? Or did the definition of "only" change like literally did?

What the hell are you trying to ask? Your grammar and syntax is so askew as to be complete obfuscation.

GREATER EVIL. You keep using that phrase so no either define it clearly or stop using it as a catch-all.

For ME to strike a woman would require me to feel there is imminent danger of, and intent on the womans part, to cause me DEADLY harm.Others need to make THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT CALLS. I am not judge/jury/and moral keeper of all others.

True, but it does provide a foundation of what is to be considered a right in this country. They considered an unalienable right to life as big thing. In addition, there is no doubt that this philosophy is a basis for our legal system.

gja:For ME to strike a woman would require me to feel there is imminent danger of, and intent on the womans part, to cause me DEADLY harm.Others need to make THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT CALLS. I am not judge/jury/and moral keeper of all others.

gja:Carth: gja: Carth: gja: Relatively Obscure: realmolo: The biatch DID deserve it. That doesn't mean she should get punched. We live in a civilized society. Violence is against the rules.

But come ON. Anti-abortion protesters are pieces-of-shiat. Wouldn't you punch one if there weren't any consequences? I know I would.

There aren't too many things that are going to make me want to punch a stupid old lady. A strong disagreement probably isn't on that list. If it wasn't just not in my nature to want to do that kind of thing, then the fact that once I started I'd be busy punching people for the rest of my life would deter me.

There is only 1 thing any woman could do to provoke me to strike her.Waving a weapon at me is it. If a woman were to point a gun, or come towards me with a knife, with the clear intent to do deadly harm she will be waking up on the ground disarmed and likely hogtied. That is MY tipping point.

So you don't think it is acceptable to resort to violence to eliminate a greater evil?

Never said that. I merely established the tipping point for myself. Try to follow along.

Unless you mean "Yes it is acceptable for other people to resort to hitting a women to stop a greater evil, but i would never do it" yes you did (which is possible). Your sentence limited to you only one instance when you would strike a women. Did you mean something else? Or did the definition of "only" change like literally did?

What the hell are you trying to ask? Your grammar and syntax is so askew as to be complete obfuscation.

GREATER EVIL. You keep using that phrase so no either define it clearly or stop using it as a catch-all.

For ME to strike a woman would require me to feel there is imminent danger of, and intent on the womans part, to cause me DEADLY harm.Others need to make THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT CALLS. I am not judge/jury/and moral keeper of all others.

So if a women was going to cause others deadly harm you wouldn't hit her to stop it? I would definitely strike a women to save someone else life. Hell, if i put my mind to it I could probably think of a few dozens reasons striking someone would be morally justifiable.

I think you're limiting yourself to only using violence in personal self defense is simplistic and ignores the reality of the world we live in.

HeadLever:True, but it does provide a foundation of what is to be considered a right in this country. They considered an unalienable right to life as big thing. In addition, there is no doubt that this philosophy is a basis for our legal system.

They also thought most rights should be limited to white male landowners too. There are a lot of good reasons we don't just make the law what we imagine some dudes who lived a few centuries ago (and had widely different views) might have thought about modern issues.

The DOI has no legal bearing as far as constitutional law goes, it is all based on precedent and our development from English common law.

The definition of the term murder specifically uses the word unlawful. Regardless of what any anti-choice folks may feel about what the law *should* be, it is clear that abortion itself is currently legal, and thus cannot be murder. Just like I can't call George Zimmerman a murderer because I think vigilante thugs deserve to be considered as such because the law doesn't just bend to my perception of right and wrong.

Carth:So if a women was going to cause others deadly harm you wouldn't hit her to stop it? I would definitely strike a women to save someone else life. Hell, if i put my mind to it I could probably think of a few dozens reasons striking someone would be morally justifiable.

I think you're your limiting yourself to only using violence in personal self defense is simplistic and ignores the reality of the world we live in.

For me I would not need to resort to violence to merely disarm/disable a woman unless I was the focus of her attention.

RobSeace:To me, one definite requirement (probably not the only one) is the capacity for consciousness... And, in human fetuses, consciousness simply is impossible until sometime in the third trimester because the brain regions necessary simply aren't formed yet... So, prior to that, they can't be "people", as far as I'm concerned, and therefore have no rights...

According to pesky things like science and our own constitution's criterium of "born persons," you are absolutely right. The strict constitutional originalists openly ignore this fact, but it is there, plain as day.

However, even if we were to grant them SOME rights to appease the anti-choicers, the rights of the fetus would need to be in proportion to the interests of the fetus ie, its consciousness. A spectrum, if you will. The idea is consistent with how we decide what animals to eat, whether people can step on ants, etc. Doing so would necessarily rank the rights of a fetus much higher than say, a blade of grass, but lower than, say, a fully sentient and very pregnant female.

Unfortunately, what you espouse is not based on the magic irrationality of religion. Good luck trying to convince the 200million+ in this country who think that magic is real and that souls weigh 21 grams. The bumper sticker is wrong: Just about everyone in the south, and not just Sith, deal in absolutes.

crazyeddie:Unfortunately, what you espouse is not based on the magic irrationality of religion. Good luck trying to convince the 200million+ in this country who think that magic is real and that souls weigh 21 grams.

But, as I and others have pointed out, they don't even get that right! By their own religion, fetuses aren't people and have no rights, either... It's actually worse: if you follow the Bible, newborns upto a month old aren't considered people, either... Whoever invented this modern notion that personhood begins at conception made it up themselves; they certainly didn't pull it out of the Bible... (Not that that would really be much better...)

I'm glad I live in a country that will happily give these people a voice. I'm also glad I live in a country that will happily let their voices fall on deaf ears. Abortion isn't going to become illegal. Period. Some asshole up for re-election might push it as a talking for a few minutes, but that's as far as it's going to go. Weed's getting decriminalized, minority groups are getting equal rights, and abortions are remaining legal. You'll get over it.

HeadLever:give me doughnuts: The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing in any court.

True, but it does provide a foundation of what is to be considered a right in this country. They considered an unalienable right to life as big thing. In addition, there is no doubt that this philosophy is a basis for our legal system.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution does that. The Declaration was no more than announcement to the British Crown that the Colonists weren't going to take his shiat anymore.

I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that this dude was escorting a woman he impregnated into the clinic while Ma and Pa Kettle screamed at her calling her a whore and worse. It's the only explanation as to why he would first do something as crazy as hit an old lady (push her away?), then just a short while later confess completely and act contrite. He probably figures it's better to protect her privacy than come clean and make her a witness to a criminal case. A Hail Mary saving face play.

I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that this dude was escorting a woman he impregnated into the clinic while Ma and Pa Kettle screamed at her calling her a whore and worse. It's the only explanation as to why he would first do something as crazy as hit an old lady (push her away?), then just a short while later confess completely and act contrite. He probably figures it's better to protect her privacy than come clean and make her a witness to a criminal case. A Hail Mary saving face play.

This man is a hero.

Your assumption, in an attempt to white knight someone who admittedly assault someone, is based on utter conjecture and opinion.It does not excuse his assaulting someone. Words hurt, yes, but when you make the jump to physical measures you cross a line that results in your exiting civilized societies boundaries.He is no hero.

I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that this dude was escorting a woman he impregnated into the clinic while Ma and Pa Kettle screamed at her calling her a whore and worse. It's the only explanation as to why he would first do something as crazy as hit an old lady (push her away?), then just a short while later confess completely and act contrite. He probably figures it's better to protect her privacy than come clean and make her a witness to a criminal case. A Hail Mary saving face play.

This man is a hero.

Your assumption, in an attempt to white knight someone who admittedly assault someone, is based on utter conjecture and opinion.It does not excuse his assaulting someone. Words hurt, yes, but when you make the jump to physical measures you cross a line that results in your exiting civilized societies boundaries.He is no hero.

I was being sarcastic about the hero stuff, but I do believe there is likely more to this story. In my experience full-time abortion protesters cross "civilized societal boundaries" a bit more often than Asian graduate students.

gja:Carth: So if a women was going to cause others deadly harm you wouldn't hit her to stop it? I would definitely strike a women to save someone else life. Hell, if i put my mind to it I could probably think of a few dozens reasons striking someone would be morally justifiable.

I think you're your limiting yourself to only using violence in personal self defense is simplistic and ignores the reality of the world we live in.

For me I would not need to resort to violence to merely disarm/disable a woman unless I was the focus of her attention.

Removing a weapon from someones hand, immobilizing them, even blocking their path is a form of violence if you want to argue semantics. Also:

Good luck stopping this woman from doing anything she really wants to do without hitting her. Hell good luck even with hitting her.

I'm not sure why people think people protest abortion. It's not like you're killing a living being...

Genesis 2:7-"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Job 33:4-"The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Ezekiel 37: 5&6- "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I shall lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord."

Even miscarriages as a result of violence are merely monetary damages...

Exodus 21:22- "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."